David Horowitz mentioned something about this some time ago in some earlier articles....well, looks like things haven't changed much.
(here's a partial list)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4114

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3924

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Media/Cartoons/emoryad1.jpg

and his archives on the same from http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6687

just part of the same militant machine that now attacks Robert, for telling it like it is.
Just another example of the book, Unholy Alliance.

Posted by: jcom972 at May 1, 2007 6:31 AM

"It is shameful that a group of religious leaders in an academic community, instead of addressing an argument, would resort to ad hominem attacks against those they disagree with."

....obviously they belong to the teachers union, you know, that leftist government run organization that is leading the youths of America down the drain leading to the septic tank....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 1, 2007 6:40 AM

This tactic, by a very aggressive fascist group, of claiming victimhood status, is brazen and of course utterly hollow. But it pushes leftist buttons expertly. Hence the alliance of far left dhimmis and far right Islamists.

Posted by: Dane at May 1, 2007 6:57 AM

l would love to put these leftist in a country run by the far right islamists for half a year or so, and then ask the leftist what they think is these islmaist, and you could put ms karen armstrong among those leftists.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 1, 2007 7:43 AM

Concerning the "understandings of jihad," why does Bukhari report in the ahadith that 97% of the jihad references are about war, and only 3% are about the inner struggle?

Posted by: darcy at May 1, 2007 8:34 AM

"...an enemy ... has declared war on all Americans who do not subscribe to their perverse view of Islam."

perverse? a theme of this Web site is that the Jihadis win arguments against "moderate" Muslims by referencing scripture and commentary and that the literalism of the Jihadi interpretations matches the understanding of traditional Muslim authorities. Robert, are you saying that the Jihadis portray Islam inaccurately?

perverse?

Posted by: StillBreathing at May 1, 2007 8:39 AM

I just posted a comment on Robert's Editorial, but it hasn't appeared. Do you have to wait for the comment to be reviewed by PC Emory Moderators who probably won't print it??

Posted by: darcy at May 1, 2007 8:41 AM

Whats the inner jihad? thats when a muslim has to decide to do whats islamicly right as opposed to what makes sense for normal humans. For example praying 5 times a day, ablution before prayer, for women it comes down to wearing a tent and not going out without an escort, continusly praising the mythical allah for just about every thing you do, eating, drinking , bathroom habits all done islamicly. Eventually the muslim wins the inner jihad and becomes a taliban as the end product. Now he/she is ready for the greater jihad of killing for allah. the only jihad that really counts for allah.

Posted by: desidude at May 1, 2007 8:52 AM

StillBreathing:

The worldview of the jihadists is perverse. Their understanding of jihad is mainstream. A mainstream perverse view.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 1, 2007 9:00 AM

The belief is "perverse" in a JudeoChristian light. "Their perverse view of Islam" is an odd phrase; Karen Armstrong would agree with it.

I've wondered how jihadwatch can have a Muslim on the Board. Are you saying that it is not for non-Muslims to decide what is normative Islam?

"Their perverse view of Islam." Hmmmm. You would say, "Their mainstream view of Islam." But you would not say, "Their correct view of Islam."

Somewhere in here (I think) is where you try to square a circle.

Is this a kind of ambiguity necessary to work with more people? Necessary to hope for Islamic reform?

Posted by: StillBreathing at May 1, 2007 9:16 AM

StillBreathing,

I have never said, and will never say, that any view of Islam is correct or incorrect. That is because there is no central authority in Islam that can decide such matters. I do say, and have said many times, that jihadists recruit by presenting their version of Islam as pure, true, and correct Islam, and that this view is buttressed by passages from the Qur'an and Sunnah as they have been understood by mainstream Islamic commentators, and by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which all teach warfare against unbelievers -- as well as by the fact that peaceful Muslims have never formulated any effective theological/juridical response to any of this. Thus the only possible avenue for Islamic reform, against which are prohibitive odds, would be a rejection of Qur'anic literalism, and literalism in regard to Muhammad's words and example. The Muslim Board member of JW agrees with this view.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 1, 2007 9:29 AM

Interesting distinction. Thank you.

Posted by: StillBreathing at May 1, 2007 9:34 AM

Something which is painfully obvious to me, is mind-boggingly incomprehensible to Mohammedans: "All religions are corrupted."

POP QUIZ

1) How many sons did Abraham have?

2) Which son must God logically be referring to when He says: "Take your son, your only son..."

=======================
So maybe, just maybe, the crafty joooooos pulled a fast one here...

But...

does that mean the Koran is perfect, authoritative, indisputible, uncorrupted?

Of course not! All religions are corrupted because human beings are involved.

DUH!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 1, 2007 11:25 AM

Here is a copy of the comment I posted on the Emory Wheel:

"I was born and raised in the Middle East. I have always known that 'Jihad' meant struggle as in 'fight' in the name of Allah to spread Islam. It does not in any way mean internal struggle as some may want us to believe. The ad "What Every American Needs To Know About Jihad" that the Emory Wheel refused to publish is absolutely true and contained irrefutable facts. It was wrong and anti-American for the Emory Wheel not to publish it. Remember this constitutional right we have? That Freedom of Speech thing?"

Posted by: Al-Insan-El-kamel at May 1, 2007 11:52 AM

It is demeaning to peaceful Muslims to deny or minimize this fact, as the Emory religious life staff does, for denying it robs Muslims of an opportunity to work for reform within their own community...

...and, I would add, to distinguish themselves from those extremists.

If they are truly concerned about the reputation of Islam, and in the welfare of fellow muslims, these leaders would work damn hard to make it clear that they recognize the problem and can articulate clearly how they, and the islamic community for which they claim to advocate, stand apart from them. Anything else is taking the side of the extremists, and dragging the precious Ummah along for the ride!

Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 1, 2007 12:15 PM

Karen Armstrong. You make the mistake Mr. Spencer that "religious community" actually equates Godly virtue.

Religion is what keeps people from God as there is always a bin Laden to a Pope for people to be told they have to go through to get to God. The current Popes do it without violence, but Revelation says the last "pope" will join the crowd.

Emory is educated on religion just like Dinesh D'Souza is educated on "conservatism". There is no belief in the heart. There is only a job in working in a religion for profit.

They do not care about free thoughts nor more than bin Laden does. They sit in their offices with degrees dictating what is the thought.
The thought being purchased by Arab oil money grants to Carter Center, fellowships and grants to the university.

Until you start making million dollar grants to Emory, your thought is going to be heretic. That is the way the religious ball bounces like all politics in life.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 1, 2007 12:48 PM

"Al-insan-El-kamel" - there are NO comments posted on Robert's article. I've tried to post, too.

Posted by: darcy at May 1, 2007 1:36 PM

Darcy,

I think they may not publish the comments they disagree with - no surprise here.......

Posted by: Al-Insan-El-kamel at May 1, 2007 2:07 PM

Well done.

Posted by: Josephine at May 1, 2007 2:16 PM

One of the Emory religious advisors who signed the statement of Apr. 20 has responded, with more ad hominem, denials, and astute avoidance of substantive content here.
In it, Aysha Hidayatullah writes (excerpt}:

"It is a reflection of the perverse narcissism of Spencer and Horowitz that they would interpret our statement as being "defamatory" against either of them. The careful reader will note that our only reference to their advertisement described it as an example of "selective, reductive, and hurtful" speech. It is a description which would be quite difficult to refute, given that numerous members of the Emory community have described the ad in a similar light. Nor is our statement defamatory, for it is intentionally much wider and more significant in its scope."

In fact, the statement which she signed said this (excerpt):

"...In response to recent expressions of a selective, reductive, and hurtful nature toward particular groups on the Emory campus, such as the publication of the “What Americans Need to Know about Jihad” advertisement in the February 9, 2007 issue of The Emory Wheel, we issue the following statement: We condemn any act that aims to intimidate, threaten, or reductively portray a religious group with the intent to antagonize or demean its members...."

Thus, the statement containing allegations of aiming to intimidate, threaten, antagonize, and demean is "in response" to the Feb. 9 article. Whether or not this constitutes defamation is a legal question, but there is no question that their wording includes in the category of "we condemn any act" the Feb 9 ad of Horowitz and Spencer as not only "any act" but the very act which is the prime subject of their statement. Moreover, they accuse Horowitz and Spencer of having "aimed" or "intended" to intimidate, threaten, (etc.) Muslims.

Apparently the religious life leaders cannot be bothered to either (a) defend their statement and provide substance to their accusation, or, failing (a), then (b) retract the allegations and issue a public apology or clarification to Horowitz and Spencer in the Emory Wheel.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 1, 2007 2:38 PM

"I would love to put these leftists in a country run by the far right islamists for half a year or so, and then ask the leftists what they think of these islamists..."

I'm afraid that quite a few of those Leftists would not recoil in a rationally informed visceral antipathy to anti-liberal Islam, but would positively embrace it, along the lines of Leftists Lynne Stewart (the lawyer who defended Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman accused of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and who later was found guilty of helping her client smuggle messages out to fellow jihadists) and Yvonne Ridley (the former journalist for various British newspapers who was kidnapped by the Taliban then subsequently converted to Islam and now goes around propagandizing for Islam and even for Taliban-style Islam).

The twisted logic of Leftism that would lead to this "Red-Green" alliance (Red for Leftism, Green for Islam) was epitomized by statements Lynne Stewart made under oath in 2004:

America embodies an “entrenched ferocious type of capitalism” that “perpetuates sexism and racism; I don't think [its destruction] can come non-violently.”

And:

“I'm talking about a popular revolution,” she said. “I'm talking about institutions being changed and that will not be changed without violence.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17004

Posted by: remote_control at May 1, 2007 2:53 PM

Lame, who is aptly named, at least half-way:

The Bible certainly does NOT indicate the last pope will be nasty. It doesn't say anything about popes at all, since that would be anachronistic and impossible, the Scriptures being written when they were.

Many of us here are Catholic and we are not the enemy, until and unless you chime in with any further lame BS. Mostly, you are silly. Can you really imagine a pope putting Christians to death, as does the beast of Revelation?

Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Try to focus on the topic and keep your sorry worldview to yourself.

Regards,

HAID

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at May 1, 2007 2:57 PM

an enemy who has declared war on all Americans who do not subscribe to their perverse view of Islam.

I see, from his explanation to StillBreathing, how Robert Spencer meant the above words. One of the things I appreciate about Robert Spencer's approach is that he refuses "to say, and will never say, that any view of Islam is correct or incorrect." If he did, he would be leaving the realm of reporting and facts and logic and entering much more interminable debates about theology and philosophy.

But I also understand how StillBreathing interpreted Horowitz and Spencer's words to be a statement that the jihadists are wrong (perverse) in their understanding of Islam. And I think many, seeing the statement of Horowitz and Spencer, would interpret it exactly as StillBreathing did. It does seem to me that Horowitz and Spencer inadvertently allowed ambiguous syntax to convey the false impression that Spencer is in agreement with those who say the jihadists have hijacked Islam.

Posted by: traeh at May 1, 2007 3:34 PM

Still Breathing,

"A mainstream perverse view." (quoting Spencer)

There is a difference between saying that

1) "mainstream Islam is perverse"

and saying that

2) "mainstream Islam is a perversion of some Islam that is putatively good".

The advantage of #1 is that it leaves in suspense any certain knowledge of the "true" Islam and merely assesses the factual Islam -- the Islam of behavior (including written expressions of course), not the Islam of essence. And as most of us here know, the Islam of behavior is perverse, and that perversion pertains to the mainstream (when one includes the massive phenomenon in Muslim societies of passive enablement along with the somewhat less passive, but no less massive, phenomenon of refusals to self-examine and criticize).

Nevertheless, in light of this, there would seem to materialize the forms of three positions:

1) Islam itself is evil and dangerous, as we can see from its founding texts, and from the mainstream behavior of Muslims in history and in our present;

2) One cannot pronounce upon whether Islam itself is evil and dangerous, one can only point to the mainstream behavior of Muslims in history and in our present and from that pronounce upon the Islam of existence, not the Islam of essence (to use the medieval Scholastic distinction);

3) Islam both in its mainstream existence and in its essence is good, and it is only a small minority who are attempting to pervert it.

It is my impression that most JW readers who post comments subscribe to #1: it is good enough for us to look at the massively evident fruits of Islam and then pronounce upon the roots. We have no need to remain fastidiously gingerly about committing ourselves to "ontological" pronouncements of Islam: Islam is what Islam does: and too much of what Islam does is horribly evil and dangerous. Period.

From Spencer's statements above, he seems to subscribe to #2. This has many rhetorical advantages, particularly in the hostile and mainstream environment in which our current war of ideas must contend. And speaking of that, most of us realize that our own Western mainstream subscribes to #3.

The #2 position can accomodate both the #1 position (since #2 does not necessarily exclude or contradict #1) as well as a another position implicit in it -- namely, the possibility of a good Islam that can be salvaged from (and/or remains spiritually pristine amid) the mainstream disease that characterizes actual Islam as distinct from essential Islam. This position one could reasonably suppose is that of the Muslim JW Board Member: there is a good essential Islam and it is (and has been throughout most or all of its history) terribly but not hopelessly mired in the grips of the pandemic disease of a bad actual Islam.

Bottom Line:

When and wheresoever the rubber meets the road and non-Muslims have to take rational actions to defend themselves from actual Islam, the differences between #2 and #1 are trivial -- unless irrational emotions enter in and try to inform a position that would exploit the potential (sanctioned by #2) for a good essential Islam and through that would try to obfuscate our general inability to tell the difference between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims.

Posted by: remote_control at May 1, 2007 3:46 PM

What makes some people think that what the progressives and deniers say isn't hateful to others? It always seems to be the truth tellers who need the Armed Guards now a days. They always need to correct the agenda driven presentation of Misinformation and omission.

As the old saying goes. It takes a hater to to call someone one.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 1, 2007 4:59 PM

"...an enemy who has declared war on all Americans who do not subscribe to their perverse view of Islam." --from Horowitz's and Spencer's statement.

Definitions of perverse: http://www.onelook.com/?w=perverse&ls=a

In exceptional instances, non-apologetic Islam critics sometimes mistakenly utter what can reasonably be classified as apologist content. I think this is one of those exceptional instances. Most readers of the above letter in Emory Wheel will not have the benefit of having followed JW, nor will they likely have read Robert's books or his subsequent explanations of the above statement in this thread. In an otherwise solid letter, the Horowitz and Spencer wording of "perverse view" in the context of that letter looks to me like a mistake or poorly-chosen phrase.

The more innocuous "...their view of Islam..." or "...their interpretation of Islam..." would have done just fine, and would not have implied anything about the correctness or incorrectness of the terrorist-jihadist view, leaving that issue up to the reader.

Likewise, it would have been inaccurate to say the the jihadists in question have a perfectly normal view of Islam and jihad, whether the normative standard is the Koran-Hadith, Islamic law, or present-day popular opinion among Muslims. Each of these sources show partial consistency and partial inconsistency with the terrorist-jihadist view. On top of that the texts are often ambiguous, fragmentary, disorganized, and decontextualized. The Islam critic must engage in some interpretive judgement, at the very least, to ascertain which texts are consistent, and which are inconsistent, with the terrorist-jihadist policy, and then form an overall assessment.

Also, as someone who has a critical view of Islam, I do find the need to try and get an accurate and plausible an interpretation of the doctrine, for myself as a citizen who is concerned about Islam, so that I may have some basis for accepting or rejecting what Muslims and Muslim scholars say about Islam.

But the use of "perverse view" does imply interpretative judgement on Horowitz's and Spencer's part, and in the above usage the phrase does imply 'incorrect' to at least some extent (please see definition of perverse).

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 1, 2007 5:27 PM

Position 2 has some advantages in terms of persuasion (rhetoric) and in terms of communication: it leaves open more lines of communication by not explicitly rejecting hopes, beliefs and conclusions that many persons hold.

Whether, in Spencer's case, that indulgence of hopes, beliefs and conclusions is merely strategic, or is also a matter of conviction, I suppose one cannot know. I'm inclined to think he adopts epistemological modesty as to essence not only because such an epistemological stance must be easier in a world where at least the pretense of such modesty is elementary etiquette among the intellectual elite and reporters (just the facts ma'am). I suspect he also subscribes to agnosticism as to essence because he really sees truth in such agnosticism.

That might be a central Christian and humanitarian value: to insist on always leaving open at least a hope, however slight, of redemption. Even as one drops bombs in self-defense, one is ready with olive branches if the aggressor desists. The prodigal son, and so on.

You have stated some of the disadvantages of position 2.

Posted by: traeh at May 1, 2007 5:31 PM

remote_control:
I responded above to your comment to StillBreathing

Posted by: traeh at May 1, 2007 5:33 PM

Hmm. I was going to respond to StillBreathing by saying that "perverted" does not equal "perverse".

perverted: 1) Turn aside from its proper use or nature. 2) Lead astray from right opinion or conduct, or especially religious belief.

Seems clear that this would have meant that the jihadists twisted the teachings of Islam away from what the "proper" interpretation should be. It's usage (see GWB for numerous examples) would have clearly been inaccurate.

But Robert and David Horowitz used "perverse":

perverse: 1) Deliberately or stubbornly departing from what is reasonable, or required. 2) Persistent in error. 3) Perverted, wicked.

But this seems too close to the meaning of perverted (it even lists them as synonyms). Dang it, now I have to agree that "perverse" was giving the jihadists too much credit, it's a weasel word. Their view of Islam is not perverse, or perverted. I hate nit-picking over choices of words, but this one to me feels significant. I agree with StillBreathing.

Anyways, overall, I thought the article by Horowitz and Spencer was excellent, and I'm glad that the Emory Wheel deigned to publish their letter (even though they are blocking comments). Those students may yet be exposed to an important lesson, despite their teachers' and administrators' best efforts.

Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2007 5:43 PM

remote_control:
question: you seem to attribute to Robert Spencer the words "A mainstream perverse view." Where did you get that quote?

Posted by: traeh at May 1, 2007 5:50 PM

remote:
never mind, I found it.

Posted by: traeh at May 1, 2007 5:56 PM

About interpretation...

Robert says: "StillBreathing,
I have never said, and will never say, that any view of Islam is correct or incorrect. That is because there is no central authority in Islam that can decide such matters..."

I would maintain that critics of Islam do need to form their own plausible interpretation of texts. The reasons for this are at least these:

1. Muslims, including Muslim scholars, are likely to talk about Islam in a positive light. The critic needs to distinguish what Muslims say about their doctrine from the substance of the doctrine.

2. Basic self-defence/defence of one's family friends, country, culture, etc. In light of the above point, and the contents of the scriptures in question, and the fact that believers tend to follow at least some of their scriptures to at least some extent, non-Muslims need to know what is actually in the Muslim playbook (Koran-Hadith-Sira-Law).

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 1, 2007 5:59 PM

Having read the Koran, I find it perverse.

Misogynistic, terroristic, intolerant, irrational, hateful, vengeful, superstitiously stupid, unscientific, and at times arguably clincially demented. As well as being fatuously self-serving (to Mohammad, it's purported "conduit" as it grants his vain wishes with Allah's servile acquiescence).

How could anyone who STRICTLY applies THIS material NOT bring about an expansionistic, theocratic terror state?

The root is rotten.

You don't get sugar from a scorpion.

It's a recipe for human disaster, as 1400 years of its application in the world have demonstrated.

(Just because a lot of Muslims have managed to tactitly avoid adhering to its dismal dogmas doesn't mean that it isn't poisonous when swallowed. And followed.)

A "perverse" application of the Koran would, paradoxically, be peaceful, tolerant, for the equality of women, scientific, anti-violence, welcoming of all faiths, anti-superstitious, and would promote rationality and love.

(They're called "apostates".)

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 2, 2007 2:41 AM

People, the Wheel actually printed ONE un-PC comment. ONE! I commented twice, the Muslim above in this thread commented once and of course there were other comments.

ONE!

Posted by: darcy at May 2, 2007 9:30 AM